A Bunch at Once
Trudy W. Schuett
Probably because I’m online more now that I’m down to one job, I’m seeing all kinds of stuff happening as relates to men’s issues. Rather than go on for days about this stuff, I’m combining it all into one meta-post. It is both encouraging and distressing as you’ll see:
Wendy McElroy talks about why she left the men’s movement.
Glenn Sacks covers From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence, a conference held last weekend in Sacramento. I wish I could’ve been there!
Dr. Helen asks: "Is maleness worth fighting for, can the culture be “cured” of its malebashing nature, or is the fight just not worth the hassle?"
My answer to Doc Helen – a resounding yes. Maleness is worth fighting for!
Even now that we have instant communication, it still takes time for the larger society to change. People have been told a lot of wrong things over the past forty years, but the days when you had to accept what Walter Cronkite was telling you, because his was the only story out there are over. I don’t think it’s necessarily in the nature of society to be anti-male, nor do I think Doc Helen really meant to put it that way.
I do believe that some of the wrong concepts are being corrected. Just the fact the Sacramento conference was held at all is encouraging, not to mention that Glenn (not that other guy so much) and many others have put the advertising industry on the defensive. If you pay attention, you'll see here and there a blogger or a small-town newspaper editor mention that maybe all this negativity toward men is not such a good idea.
Now the challenge, though, is in providing some leadership and direction ordinary people can get behind. Glenn Sacks and Doc Helen are doing a lot to make these issues more approachable.
As Larry Niven would say, there is no cause so noble and worthy that it won't attract some fuggheads.
This is the sort of thing that drove many women (and men) away from the feminist movement.
I've seen them blatantly misrepresent and exaggerate other things just like this in order to make themselves look better and their critics look worse. They're both particularly prone to falsely characterizing valid and sensible criticism as "attacks", especially when they've been argumentatively forced into a corner and have no other options -- apart, of course, from behaving like adults and conceding that, well, yeah, okay, they might have been wrong or have made a mistake.
Nothing is ever THEIR fault or responsibility; it's always someone else's "bad behavior" that DROVE them, the poor helpless victims that they are, into whatever disagreeable action they absolutely HAD to take, out of nothing more than pure and noble and above all squeaky-clean-handed self-defense.
Yeeeah. . .
. . .riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
In fact, there are no few sensible and rational people in the men's issues advocacy and activism movement who will be quite glad to hear of this, and even more who will just shrug with informed indifference and get back to the real and serious work involved.
By my experience, the common assessment that she's too often been too high-maintenance to be worth the little she did accomplish is entirely valid.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.